Make the time to watch this video about what happened on 9/11.
I have laundry to do. The kitchen is a mess.
I'll be back on Monday.
« Chuck on the Radio | Main | Embryo, Fetus - What's the Difference and Who Cares? »
The comments to this entry are closed.
Ray wasn't singing about what he knew, 'cause Ray had been blind since he was a child. He hadn't seen many purple mountains. He hadn't seen many fruited plains. He was singing about what he believed to be.
Mr. President, we love America, not because of all of us have seen the beauty all the time.
But we believed if we kept on working, if we kept on marching, if we kept on voting, if we kept on believing, we would make America beautiful for everybody.
I recently heard Noam Chomsky respond to a question about the 9/11 conspiracy theories (podcast at http://www.will.uiuc.edu/am/mediamatters/default.htm).
He made the point that he simply doesn't see this as an important use of his time. We aren't about to get any new data, the theories are hard to believe, and there are current issues that are a great deal more important. Anyway, he said it better than I of course.
Posted by: Charley | March 16, 2006 at 04:52 PM
That sounds like a dishonest answer from him.
Chomsky's work has never depended upon digging up new data but simply looking at the data already publicly available and ignoring the propaganda and spin. As for important use of his time --- holy crap what event is of more significance than 9-11? And as for "hard to believe" Chomsky more than most people knows that how public perception has been manipulated is no measure of whether something is true or not when it comes to US foreign policy.
However his usual work doesn't bother to look at conspiracy theories (in the literal sense of covert / secret actions by governments) but only uses stuff that he can prove beyond doubt -- typically relying on released government documents or mainstream newspaper articles. He may feel that in the even of a conspiracy behind 9-11 there may not be enough evidence that is incontrovertible. He's not made comments about the conspiracy behind Pearl Harbor much for example.
Nevertheless there is a lot of stuff that can be said about 9-11 which is recorded in unimpeachable sources of the quality he uses. An accademic of his stature pointing out these inconsistencies would be helpful in getting these things investigated and producing the data he says doesn't exist yet.
Posted by: DavidByron | March 16, 2006 at 10:12 PM
I don't have an hour and a half to watch a conspiracy theory. I'm afraid I couldn't get past the point where I asked, "If these planes were drones, then where are the passengers?"
Posted by: Elayne Riggs | March 18, 2006 at 08:12 AM